Re: 8800GT or 8800GTX

At 1900x1200 with eye candy on, the GTX was approximately 20&#37; faster on the GT's release - not quite enough to justify the costs IMO. If I was to go (almost) all out as I consider getting the GTX to be, I would go GT SLi.

Re: 8800GT or 8800GTX

I know your asking about GTX or GT but have you considered the new ATI 3870 cheaper than the GT and with supply limited prices higher than they should be for the GT plus you won't get your hands on one for a good few weeks at least. So the 3870 is at least worth a look could be a nice alternative.

Re: 8800GT or 8800GTX

Not sure if it helps, but the GTX struggles in Crysis, quite a bit. At 1680x1050, its (almost?) unplayable (on high). Atleast the demo was.. not sure if the full game makes it playable like that.

So basically, the GT is maybe better value really, but considering the GTX struggles, you are only going to end up with even more struggle, by buying the GT. How high they both overclock, would maybe swing it for me.

Another option may be to get the E6600 instead of the quad core, and put the difference towards getting the GTX. Its kind of risky, because quad core sets you up better for the future. But they are both technically the same speed, and there won't be anything that requires a quad core for a million years or so. Crysis is mostly GPU limited too, so a top end quad core won't give much improvement (if any) over an E6600. So really, if Crysis was your main priority, you would be doing yourself a favour to buy an E6600 instead, and put the money towards a GTX.

Thats maybe not the best decision when you look to the future and see some games that will make good use of quad cores, but for the near future, the bigger graphics card will immediately pay off, and skimping on the CPU slightly, won't make any difference. (yet). Something to consider anyway.

Re: 8800GT or 8800GTX

The E6750 is actually cheaper than the E6600 and is probably a better buy. My current stance remain that the Q6600 is still too pricey compared to dual core. Sure, &#163;160 for one of the fanciest (and fastest) solution right now is actually not too bad - but it doesn't change the fact it's 43.58&#37; more expensive than the E6750. By the time the Q6600 actually shows those benefit (again assuming no you do not run multiple CPU intensive applications), it'll probably be time for another upgrade. I'll shut up about this once the gap narrows to around 20-25%.

How much is a GTX nowadays? Shall we say &#163;290 (cheapest @ Scan is about &#163;293.61)? If I was to build a PC to be used primarily for gaming (without video encoding/running distributed computing apps in the background, for the price of a Q6600 + GTX (~&#163;450), I'd get a E6750 + 2xGT from here. I think it will the overall the faster gaming system: if a game do not scale with SLi at all, it might be up to 20% slower than the GTX system - but those that do gain around 50% over the GTX.. I am not sure about Crysis on release but a lot of the recent hits do benefit from it (UT3, QW:ET, CoD 4).

Re: 8800GT or 8800GTX

'Nearly as good' is subjective. A lot of people here think it is close enough for the money. I am quite sure nVidia would lose a lot of sales for the GTX (if the GT is more widely available), because I suspect many would not pay 75&#37; more for 20% more performance. I doubt anyone would say 'never ever', that's silly. There are people who would pay for 'Duo/Quad Extreme'. Those are faster, and could potentially be pushed further - but not enough in most people's opinion to justify the premium.

It is worth noting that the 20% average I got is derived from the sample data (only @1900x1200) taken from the Firingsquads. And in numerical terms, we are looking at 7 frames average. Keep in mind that it is usually a lot lower when the gameplay is almost unbearably slow (e.g. 21 -> 25) and higher when the gameplay is likely to be smooth (59 -> 70).

You may still think it is 'hell of a lot', that's fine. A lot of people here disagree and I don't think they word carry less weight. Personally, I would not touch the GTX unless it cost closer to &#163;200 than &#163;250.

Re: 8800GT or 8800GTX

If you can afford the GTX, have a large monitor (22" >) and want to play games on the best settings at high resolutions then go for the GTX, otherwise compromise a little and save some money with the GT.

I have just purchased a BFG 8800 GTX OC2 with a new build and it eats up anything i through at it, very happy i went for it.

Re: 8800GT or 8800GTX

Avaibility is also another issue, with the 8800gt being so hard to get hold of, so if you want it now then the GTX has the major advantage of being in stock.

I'd generally agree that if you're only on a 17-19" monitor then 8800gt
If you're on a high res (22"+ depending on the res) then the GTX is looking better.

On the PSU
if it is the OCZ 600W with 120mm Fan GameXStream Power Supply then it'll be fine, however if it's the StealthXStream then I'd look for a differnt PSU
(the StealthXStream is there lower cost model, with cheaper components and not as good)